I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

Hello! I'm Casey, and you may have seen me in the 2020 NSDA final round of Duo! I am an alum of Hattiesburg High School (In Mississippi) and am currently a member of the Alabama Forensic Council at the University of Alabama. I've been competing since the 7th grade (so now that's 10 years of speech oh lord) and while I stuck to interp in high school, I've branched out to platform events in college so I've either competed in or seen every event out there. I don't have any super specific judging preferences, I only ask that you give it your all. If you ever have any questions about my ballot/comments or the AFC/Alabama, feel free to email me at caseybuisson@gmail.com and I'd be happy to talk to you! If I've learned anything in my time as a competitor it's to have FUN while you're performing and your judges will notice. Good luck!!

Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.

I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should apply to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.

In, PF I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round and not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination so it is important to remember that with me.

In Policy, I am least familiar, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, and I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.

I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???

Hey Everyone!

I’m an inexperienced judge, so bear with me!

When it comes to Speech speak clearly and with passion! And in debate my vote will go to whoever has the best case, strongest evidence, and convinces me to vote for them more! Please try to keep debate as civil as possible!

I can give time signals to anyone who needs it!

See y’all in round, good luck!!

I am an old school LD debater with an emphasis on persuasion. I believe in debate as a persuasive competition. That means I need to be able to understand you. I do not like speed or reading at non-human levels. The quality of arguments goes a lot farther with me than the quantity of arguments.

I have competed and judged speech and debate on both the high school and college level. When I was a competitor I did individual events (IEs), public forum debate, policy debate, LD, congressional debate, parliamentary debate (NPDA) and public debate (IPDA). I am now an attorney and I enjoy judging tournaments as much as I can. In any debate event, I prefer rounds to be less technical and for the debaters to directly clash and discuss the important issues related to the resolution. I think the strength of the arguments and contentions is equally important to the delivery and presentation since this is a competitive public speaking activity.

I participated in speech and debate in High School and have been judging debate all year this school year.

I am generally a tabula rasa judge beginning with a blank slate and look to see which side presents the best overall arguments. I tend to put a greater burden of proof on the affirmative since the negative can usually argue to the status quo.